There are aspects of this game that I really like, and others that I really hate. I have to admit, the last final fantasy game I played was the very first one, many moons ago, and of course this is almost nothing like that (other than the turn based gameplay). That said, when I started the game, I almost shut it off when I basically had to watch a what amounted to a video game music video and saw that Yuna's dressphere was songstress and she's standing there dancing and singing (thankfully you don't hear it) in the middle of a battle - WTF!? But I kept playing, switching her to warrior and now enjoy the game more. The storyline is interesting (I really need to get FFX - this one was just cheaper at the time). There's a LOT of gameplay, lots of stuff to do, which is great. Wish it was a bit more linear though, as it's really easy to end up in a place you're not nearly strong enough to fight in (one aspect that is really frustrating is that in one of the easier worlds, there's an enemy to fight that kills all three characters in three moves, every time - and if you want to do that section of the game (the shop keeper that owes money), you have no choice but to play that area. I've yet to get by it, so have been checking out the other parts of the game, leveling up). The graphics are amazing as well, which is nice as most PS2 games I've played have crappy graphics (yeah, yeah, I get that it's an older console but still). Am hoping that FFX gets here this week so I can finish that one first before going back to FFX2 as it's a sequel and you miss out on a lot of the nods to the previous game if you haven't played it.

It's a Funko Pop, it's Loki, what's not to love? Well, only one thing really - this version of Loki with the helmet is just as PINK as the version without. Loki is PALE in the movies, but Funko makes him so pink it's really disappointing. I have him sitting beside my Winter Soldier version of Steve Rogers and the Captain America version is actually pale, and not pink, so I know they're capable of it - I just don't see why they don't make Loki pale. At any rate, even though I hate that the color of his skin looks so off, it's still Loki and I love it.

I haven't played the game much because, to be honest, the dialogue is SO ridiculous (not to mention the numerous aspects of the story that were changed to fit the game - Frodo's birthday instead of Bilbo's, Frodo selling Bag End to the Sackville-Baggins'), and the camera angle is just completely and utterly frustrating. You pretty much have to run in a circle to get Frodo not only pointed in the right direction but the camera angle LOOKING in the right direction. You can move the camera angle itself, but it's annoying to have to keep doing that rather than having the game register where the character is looking and have the camera automatically showing you that angle. There's a lot of running around to do without a lot of actual stuff to do - and a lot of it is more talking than DOING anything. It's fine for what it is, I suppose, and would be good if you have nothing else to do, to kill some time but I wouldn't suggest buying it if it's more than $6-$7.

This is a great little organizer. It suits my needs perfectly. I took a star off because the plastic in the top part snapped in two - though to be fair, I have more on the shelf than it is probably meant to have. That said, even with the split, it is still holding approximately 10 pair of thin pants (like yoga pants), 14 cotton t-shirts, 8 dress shirts, all my socks, all my underwear (I bought the honey-can-do drawers that fit in this), with two shelves left over that are currently holding 14 playstation games, two funko papercrafts, a lootcrate box with items in it, and the velcro is still holding strong, even with the split plastic piece.

The story was alright - engaging enough, but I really wish someone would tell Ashton to STOP putting "editor's notes" in the middle of the damn stories. There is nothing more annoying than reading along and then seeing this random (and almost ALWAYS pointless) note in the middle of a paragraph. It is NOT important to the story to know where Holmes first uttered a comment. If you want to include that, at least have the good sense to use footnotes that link to the END of the story!!! The first books in this series did not have this, so I have NO idea why they are in the latest three books.

I have to wonder if the other reviewers read the same story, or if perhaps the author paid them for such rave reviews.

This story was dreadful. Between the wretched lack of editing that allowed paragraphs being repeatedly getting through, and the annoying and mind numbingly uncreative habit the author has of describing scenes exactly the same bloody way...I am shocked anyone gave this above 2 stars.

In the very first two pages there is a repeated paragraph, and the author has Watson describe Holmes lying down on the couch with his eyes closed, fingertips together, thinking, as Watson knows he is doing as he's seen it often enough, three freaking times in the first chapter alone. The author has the client stop two times in the telling of his story "to see if Holmes and Watson are listening". There is little to no investigation in this - Holmes does it all on his own, and keeps Watson in the dark about it all, until they RETURN TO ENGLAND. We don't even find out what happened to the girl - the whole REASON the client comes to England in the first place!!! - until their return, and it is given in an offhand oh well, we'll never know for sure what happened, kind of way until the last page because Holmes is talking about the robberies which, btw the way are barely a blip from the client. He wants to find the woman he is supposed to marry, but somewhere along the way the story suddenly becomes all about these robberies.

I really wish that reviews were HONEST. I bought all three stories by this author based on the reviews and now wish I had saved my money. I am highly doubtful that the other two will be any better than this one.

I have no idea what book the other reviewers read, but it could not have been this one. This was a DISASTER. Watson is a complete and utter BUFFOON in this book, constantly questioning Holmes' decisions, puffing himself up with arrogance as if he was on par with Holmes as a detective and actually going so far at one point as to saying to Holmes' face that there was nothing more HE could possibly have deduced in a particular situation than Watson himself had.

Not only that, but this is a story with Watson following around this golfer like a bloody puppy dog, dazzled by his golfing skills while ignoring pretty much all the evidence falling down around his ears. And even when it is PAINFULLY obvious who the killer is (LONG before the end), STILL Watson is completely and utterly oblivious, and it isn't until Watson sees the bloody person just about to commit murder that he finally GETS it.

Worse still is the author's near bloody CONSTANT redundant repeating of random bits of information. At one point a character says something to Watson, let's say "I like apple juice" (I don't want to completely spoil things), and Watson says "hmm, what makes you think you like apple juice?" and said character says, "Because I like apples", and then Watson goes on to say "I think I understand what you mean to say - you like apple juice! But surely you must be mistaken! Why would possibly think that you like apple juice?" *headdesk* I honestly have never read a pastiche with such an absolutely unlikeable Watson.

I finished this only because I was reading it to make myself fall asleep - it last several days because I was lucky to get through one, maybe two chapters a night. Most of book focuses on the golfing side of things, tossing out the terminology left right and center, leaving anyone not actually interested in golf bored to tears (or falling asleep), with Holmes, Watson and the actual "mystery" (and I use that term loosely) playing second fiddle, or third fiddle to golfing jargon and random blah blah blahing about golf, golfers, golf clubs, golf championships etc. And as if all of that wasn't annoying enough, this is written with random comments from Watson interspersed along the lines of "while we enjoy 'X' today, back in 189- this wasn't the case", throwing, at least this reader, out of the moment and reminding me like a brick to the head that this is "Watson" writing up this account many years after the fact. Most authors have the sense to stick that in an opening note or "author's notes" instead of pulling people out of the story.

Overall, I wish I could get my money back - even though this didn't cost much to buy - and wholeheartedly urge any prospective readers to move on and look for a better pastiche (and there are MANY out there).

This was not up to Ashton's usual standards. It was rushed, and needed editing for obvious errors in regards to format. The story itself was weak in comparison to some of Ashton's others - a lot of it relied HEAVILY on the rather annoying habit authors have of using Holmes' sometimes secrecy in the original stories to be the basis of drawing out their own stories. This could have been concluded in little more than half the pages it was, and was a rather ridiculous attempt to shove Moriarty and Colonel Moran into the Holmes "canon" much earlier than they are introduced - even worse, both Holmes and his brother seem frightened of these men (who in the canon Holmes pursued with clear intent), to the point that they decide NOT to bother going after Moran for the murders committed. For the sixth in a series by an otherwise enjoyable author, this is a rather huge disappointment.

I enjoyed this novel immensely. I was disappointed to see that this was Ziemecki's only Sherlock Holmes tale and hope that he will write more.

It may not be a classic Holmes whodunnit, but it gives such a lovely incite into the relationship between Holmes and Watson and just how much they truly love and care for one another. There is nothing "gay" about it - for those absolutely horrid by the mere thought (personally I have always read Holmes as more asexual than anything else) - this is two men who have known each other decades by this point; the best of friends, who love one another like family and I think that that is absolutely true of the way ACD wrote the characters. That said, I had to knock a star off because the novel is in need of an editor. There are not gross errors like some other Holmes pastiches that just make it absolutely PAINFUL to get through a sentence. No, these are merely "trifles" that can be a bit annoying (meet instead of met, women instead of woman). Aside from the few typos, the novel could have done with an editor to trim a bit of the fat, as it were, of some of Watson's rambling thought processes.

I'd like to make note here of one thing that always annoys me about a certain subset of Holmesian authors - the ones that are DESPERATE to prove just how STRAIGHT Watson and Holmes are. Ziemecki manages to convey ACD's style where Watson's and even Holmes' to a lesser degree sexuality stands, where there are glimpses of it without feeling it necessary to HAMMER the reader over the head with Watson's and Holmes's HETEROSEXUALITY!OMG! It was absolutely REFRESHING to see an author write these two characters as two men that clearly love each other without feeling the need to then beat the reader about the head with the EVIDENCE!! of their straightness.

Overall, I highly recommend for anyone that loves a good hurt/comfort style read with Holmes and Watson as the stars. I was truly sad to come to the end of this tale.

I find anyone that claims they are somehow better at sussing out what is or is not, was or was not, the relationship between these two characters is not to be paid any mind. The beauty of literature is that each and every person takes from it whatever THEY take from it. It is not only disheartening, but utterly FRUSTRATING when an author attempts to claim some higher authority - that THEIR opinion is the be all, end all of a given subject, simply based on their OWN interpretation of the FICTIONAL accounts of a given story, or on their "research" (and in this case, Thomson's research lends heavily to depending on OTHER people's opinions) of said characters is ridiculous to say the least.

Unless Thomson is Arthur Conan Doyle incarnate, she can only SPECULATE on what his intentions for Holmes and Watson was. Unless she is somehow the very embodiment of these two characters, she again, can only SPECULATE on their relationship. Her opinion is no more definitive than mine, yours, or buddy down the street.

So I will thank the June Thomson's of the world to let the reader be the bloody one to determine what they see or do not see in a given FICTIONAL set of stories, and STOP attempting to shove their own personal speculations onto those who are just as invested in these characters as she is. There are just as many Sherlockians out there that have put just as much effort into the study of these characters that can give you NUMEROUS reasons that the relationship between Holmes and Watson was something more than friendship - and those reasons are no more, or less accurate or inaccurate than Thomson's reasons against.

I find this "biography" to be a rather pointless excuse to further a narrow agenda that is neither necessary nor whole heartedly accepted by Sherlockian fen. I will say again, let the reader be the one to decide what is or is not, was or was not the truth about the relationship between Holmes and Watson.